zlacker

[return to "Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research"]
1. roca+t41[view] [source] 2021-09-24 22:37:36
>>BellLa+(OP)
Daszak should be compelled to reveal everything he knows and all relevant evidence --- all proposals, all emails, all files, any other documentation.

I'm mystified why this hasn't already happened. I mean, his career depends on government largesse so it shouldn't even require coercion. Full cooperation or no cash.

◧◩
2. hn_thr+H61[view] [source] 2021-09-24 22:52:59
>>roca+t41
I've been extremely wary of how some of the evidence of Covid-19 origins have come about, particular because so much of it has been presented as "Well, we've never seen this before, so it must have lab origins."

That said, I think the context around this is extremely damning for Daszak. I didn't realize this until reading the Wikipedia article on Daszak, but he was the one that organized the Feb 2020 letter in the Lancet condemning suggestions of a lab origin for Covid-19 as conspiracy theories. But how could he do this while conveniently leaving out that his own organization was involved in highly risky coronavirus research?

Again, I don't think this news puts us much closer to uncovering the origins of Covid-19, but it does show how some of these folks leading the charge of "it had to be natural" were at the very least being duplicitous in their communications.

◧◩◪
3. hammoc+6g1[view] [source] 2021-09-25 00:27:32
>>hn_thr+H61
>I didn't realize this until reading the Wikipedia article on Daszak, but he was the one that organized the Feb 2020 letter in the Lancet condemning suggestions of a lab origin for Covid-19 as conspiracy theories.

Tangent, but if it takes this long to learn a fact like that, consider a critical audit of your regular news sources.

◧◩◪◨
4. gamema+EA1[view] [source] 2021-09-25 04:29:34
>>hammoc+6g1
Yeah, I'm always curious about this -- what would a good recommendation be to get a broad base of news while also relying on credible information?

E.g. I want to know the different reasonable perspectives on issues/events without entertaining every kooky idea. In this case, I feel like I lumped what seems a plausible concern in with kooky ideas, and so missed the entire non-kooky narrative.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. willhi+NT1[view] [source] 2021-09-25 09:23:30
>>gamema+EA1
You should stop outsourcing credibility evaluation to others and see what you think of the kooks. The kooks called the coronavirus sooo much better than everyone else, from the jump.

You'll get a lot more "noise", sure, but the signal you do get can be incredibly useful. You learn to place less trust on any individual thing you hear, and get a better bullshit detector as you go. It's well worthwhile, and you'll be surprisingly well informed all without some large entity telling you "what's really happening".

[go to top]